Fact check: Ice can stop based on race

1. A court ruling that reshaped the battlefield on race and stops

A widely cited September 2025 Supreme Court decision has been described in news coverage as allowing ICE agents to consider race and related characteristics—such as language and occupation—when deciding whom to stop and detain for immigration enforcement, a development framed as legally clearing the way for practices critics call racial profiling ^[1]. Reporting around the decision notes that the Court either narrowed prior restraints on federal raids or vacated earlier injunctions, producing immediate operational leeway for ICE contractors and agents; supporters argue this restores necessary agency discretion for immigration enforcement, while opponents warn it erodes longstanding civil‑rights protections ^{[5] [1]}.

2. Lawmakers and advocates pointing to patterns, not isolated incidents

Members of Congress, led by Representative Salud Carbajal and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, have publicly demanded explanations and documentation from DHS about whether ICE has engaged in race‑based stopping practices, insisting that complaints and arrest patterns suggest targeting by race, language, and occupation rather than individualized probable cause ^[3]. These legislators cite Fourth Amendment concerns and broader civil rights implications and have amplified anecdotal reports of Latinos and Spanish speakers disproportionately stopped or avoiding public life; their inquiries seek internal guidance, arrest logs, and oversight to determine whether agency policy or practice facilitated discriminatory stops ^[3].

3. DHS and ICE rebuttals: status, not race, as the target

The Department of Homeland Security has publicly rejected allegations that ICE conducts racial profiling, asserting that enforcement priorities are based on immigration status and criminal history, not race or ethnicity, and highlighting arrests of individuals with criminal records as examples of lawful targeting ^[2]. DHS statements emphasize policy frameworks and operational criteria that nominally exclude race as a sole determinant, while also suggesting reporters and critics misunderstand routine enforcement factors; this official stance frames the dispute as one over interpretation and implementation rather than admission of race‑based stops ^[2].

4. Local upheaval after injunctions were lifted: fear and protests grow

Following judicial actions that lifted or narrowed injunctions limiting federal immigration raids—particularly in places like Los Angeles—communities reported immediate spikes in fear, protests, and behavioral changes among US citizens and permanent residents of color who felt vulnerable to stops ^[4]. Coverage documents people altering commutes, avoiding workplaces, and expressing anxiety about being misidentified, which advocates interpret as evidence of chilling effects and an environment where race and language become proxies for suspicion; opponents counter that lawful enforcement necessarily affects communities with higher undocumented populations irrespective of race claims ^[4].

5. Media and advocates say the Court "legalized" profiling; critics dispute that framing

Some journalism and advocacy pieces have characterized the Court decision and subsequent operational changes as effectively legalizing racial profiling, arguing the legal language and lifted restraints permit agents to factor race in stops and detentions ^{[1] [4]}. Other analysts and DHS officials caution that legal allowance to consider certain contextual factors does not equate to carte blanche discrimination, noting constitutional safeguards and internal directives that are supposed to prevent race from being the decisive basis for stops; this dispute reflects divergent readings of the ruling’s scope and enforcement guidance ^{[1] [6]}.

6. Policy documents and agency guidance add nuance but leave gaps

ICE and DHS policy materials on detention and enforcement provide procedural detail about detention operations and targeting criteria, yet available guidance excerpts do not fully dispel concerns that race, language, or location may function as de facto proxies in field decisions ^[6]. Analysts point out that operational discretion plus ambiguous supervisory oversight can create outcomes at odds with formal nondiscrimination norms; that gap explains why lawmakers and community groups seek records and internal communications to determine whether practices align with the agencies’ public denials ^{[6] [3]}.

7. What the evidence does and does not prove right now

Contemporary reporting shows credible assertions that recent legal changes broadened ICE’s discretion to consider race‑adjacent factors, and it shows both community reports of race‑targeted stops and DHS denials that enforcement is race‑based ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The materials provided do not include a definitive dataset proving systemic, intentional race‑only stops by ICE across the board; instead they document contested legal interpretations, documented fear and complaints from affected communities, and an ongoing oversight dispute that will hinge on internal records and future court rulings ^[3].

8. Moving forward: oversight, transparency, and legal clarity will decide outcomes

The current mix of a Supreme Court decision, congressional inquiries, community protests, and agency denials makes clear that resolving whether ICE “can” stop people based on race will require oversight, transparency, and possibly further litigation; Congress has demanded records, advocates are preparing litigation, and communities are mobilizing to document stops and outcomes ^{[3] [4]}. Until investigators obtain internal ICE manuals, stop logs, and supervisory communications, public sources show a legal environment permissive of broader profiling-like considerations but do not yet provide single‑source proof that race alone is officially used as a legitimate basis for stops across the agency ^{[6] [1]}.